RIP, Starting Pitching
One of the Most Familiar Moves in Modern BaseballThe voice on 1050ESPN radio in New York praised Mike Mussina for the ability he's demonstrated to keep the 2008 Yankees "in games." Gary Cohen commended Oliver Perez on a "quality start" against Cincinnati (he went six, gave up three runs, three hits and walked four). During that same Sunday game, a graphic scrolled across the screen which revealed that the New York Mets were averaging over three-and-a-half relief appearances per game. The signs are everywhere, and they have been for years. MLB pitching is a disaster.
To be more pointed, the art of starting pitching is evaporating before our eyes. While many have lamented this trend time and again, but the breaking point for this 30-yr. old fan came this weekend fueled by the comments and stats above.
Since when did "keeping your team in the game" become something to get excited about from your starting pitcher? How has professional baseball allowed the term "quality start" to live on within its current parameters? In a decade, will young baseball fans even know what a complete game is? Will witnessing a starting hurler go nine be the future equivalent of witnessing a no-hitter?
We're not sure what to do about it, so for now we've simply chosen to rant. A few days ago, we shared a few recollections of one of our most memorable moments from the 1986 baseball season. We'll use that as a jumping-off point to provide some perspective.
Back in 1986, the New York Mets pitching staff posted the most wins and lowest ERA in the National League. Four pitchers (Darling, Gooden, Fernandez and Ojeda) started at least 30 games and logged at least 204 innings. Rick Aguilera, the team's fifth starter, started 20 games and held the highest ERA on the staff at 3.88. The Mets team ERA was 3.11. Total complete games? 27. Closer Roger McDowell made 75 appearances...and pitched 128 innings (Billy Wagner appeared in 66 games last year, stretching to record 68.3 innings worth of work).
Fast-forward a mere 20 years. Major League Baseball, 2006. The lowest NL ERA at the conclusion of that season belonged to the San Diego Padres. Their team ERA? 3.87. Chris Young boasted the lowest number of the Padres starters (who started at least 20 games) at 3.46. As a team, the Pads managed four complete games. Jake Peavy led the team with two. Doc Gooden topped the '86 Mets staff with 12.
Just short of a quarter of the way into the 2008 season, there have been six complete games -- in the National League. Starting pitching is a shell of its formal self. Pitch counts. Specialization. The steroid era. Better hitters. Smaller parks. Shrunken strike zones. Whatever the reasons, I don't like it one bit. Perhaps even more disturbing, it seems the number of pitchers who are even trying to go out, dominate and shut down the opposing team for nine innings are few and far between.
Instead, most gladly hand over the ball after six or seven innings content that they've left their team in a good position or, at worst, kept them in the game. In turn, their respective managers gleefully accept said ball and hand it off to their set-up guy, closer, left-handed specialist, set-up guy to the set-up guy, one-batter left-handed specialist, closer only on days the real closer has pitched a grand total of three innings that week, and on and on and on...UGH.
A few young bucks give me hope. James Shields and Tim Lincecum come immediately to mind. It's also nice to see Doc Halladay has managed to go the distance in four of eight starts. But is there really any hope for the tide to turn? Forty years ago, Bob Gibson went 22-9 for the 1968 St. Louis Cardinals. Gibson started 34 games going the distance in 28 of those 34 starts. He won the Cy Young on his way to an ERA of 1.12 in over 300 innings of work. In the year 2020, will five inning/90 pitch starts and 5.0 ERAs be customary "benchmarks" for Major League starters? If so, I weep for the future.
To be more pointed, the art of starting pitching is evaporating before our eyes. While many have lamented this trend time and again, but the breaking point for this 30-yr. old fan came this weekend fueled by the comments and stats above.
Since when did "keeping your team in the game" become something to get excited about from your starting pitcher? How has professional baseball allowed the term "quality start" to live on within its current parameters? In a decade, will young baseball fans even know what a complete game is? Will witnessing a starting hurler go nine be the future equivalent of witnessing a no-hitter?
We're not sure what to do about it, so for now we've simply chosen to rant. A few days ago, we shared a few recollections of one of our most memorable moments from the 1986 baseball season. We'll use that as a jumping-off point to provide some perspective.
Back in 1986, the New York Mets pitching staff posted the most wins and lowest ERA in the National League. Four pitchers (Darling, Gooden, Fernandez and Ojeda) started at least 30 games and logged at least 204 innings. Rick Aguilera, the team's fifth starter, started 20 games and held the highest ERA on the staff at 3.88. The Mets team ERA was 3.11. Total complete games? 27. Closer Roger McDowell made 75 appearances...and pitched 128 innings (Billy Wagner appeared in 66 games last year, stretching to record 68.3 innings worth of work).
Fast-forward a mere 20 years. Major League Baseball, 2006. The lowest NL ERA at the conclusion of that season belonged to the San Diego Padres. Their team ERA? 3.87. Chris Young boasted the lowest number of the Padres starters (who started at least 20 games) at 3.46. As a team, the Pads managed four complete games. Jake Peavy led the team with two. Doc Gooden topped the '86 Mets staff with 12.
Just short of a quarter of the way into the 2008 season, there have been six complete games -- in the National League. Starting pitching is a shell of its formal self. Pitch counts. Specialization. The steroid era. Better hitters. Smaller parks. Shrunken strike zones. Whatever the reasons, I don't like it one bit. Perhaps even more disturbing, it seems the number of pitchers who are even trying to go out, dominate and shut down the opposing team for nine innings are few and far between.
Instead, most gladly hand over the ball after six or seven innings content that they've left their team in a good position or, at worst, kept them in the game. In turn, their respective managers gleefully accept said ball and hand it off to their set-up guy, closer, left-handed specialist, set-up guy to the set-up guy, one-batter left-handed specialist, closer only on days the real closer has pitched a grand total of three innings that week, and on and on and on...UGH.
A few young bucks give me hope. James Shields and Tim Lincecum come immediately to mind. It's also nice to see Doc Halladay has managed to go the distance in four of eight starts. But is there really any hope for the tide to turn? Forty years ago, Bob Gibson went 22-9 for the 1968 St. Louis Cardinals. Gibson started 34 games going the distance in 28 of those 34 starts. He won the Cy Young on his way to an ERA of 1.12 in over 300 innings of work. In the year 2020, will five inning/90 pitch starts and 5.0 ERAs be customary "benchmarks" for Major League starters? If so, I weep for the future.
Labels:
Bullpens,
ERA,
MLB,
Quality Start
10 comments:
Good stuff. And funny, the first guy I thought of was Doc Halliday—a throwback to a real Hoss pitcher.
I can understand why an organization wants to have "Joba Rules" but I think a pitcher needs to learn how to grow and extend his innings as he develops.
A a result of all this, I'd like to raise the mound back up again to where it was before 1969. It'll never happen, but it might at least give the pitcher's a fighting chance.
I may be a little off, but is it possible that one of the reasons that Gooden's career took such a tumble was that he had logged over 1400 innings as a pro by the time he was 24? Just a thought.
yes, that is quite possible and a good point. perhaps the 52 complete games (by that time) was a bit much. regardless, though, the philosophy has gone way too far the other way. you also never know on some individuals. perhaps it had something to do with his off-field stuff, too. get where you're coming from, though. gibson, ryan, seaver, even feller and ford, all threw a ton of innings, but most not as many as quickly.
His career took such a tumble in 1986 because he was doing more blow than Tony Montana.
There's no doubt that complete games have become shockingly uncommon. But you have to look at it from the perspective of depth - if you've got several live arms in the bullpen, why do you want to force your starter to throw 9 innings every game when you probably have a better chance to win putting a fresh reliever out there in the 7th or 8th over your flagging starter?
Also, this isn't all the fault of the pitchers or even of general managerial tactics. Strike zones have gotten smaller and hitters more selective; thus starters are forced to throw more pitches and they wear down sooner. It's not necessarily that today's starters are less capable of throwing complete games - the act of throwing a complete game itself has just become that much more difficult, in my opinion. And unless your bullpen is absolutely awful, where's your motivation to leave a guy in unless he's throwing a shutout?
I agree with your post 100%. Anybody who starts nitpicking about Gooden's downfall is just missing the point of the story.
I am working on a similar thing today and came across this response from Bill James: "In 1970 major league teams used 1.75 relievers per game. In 1990 they used 2.02 relievers per game, and in 2007 they used 2.97 per game — and the rate of increase in this area is still accelerating."
Pretty soon we will see 4 IPs minimum to get a Win. It is disgusting. 5 man rotations, 100 pitch counts and they still can't go 8 innings. Forget it if you are a K pitcher. You're out in the 5th. no matter what!
Windier e. megatons' comment was pretty accurate, don't you think? You can't just look at IP, K, W, etc without looking at the historical context. The 80s were much better for pitchers, just like the 60s were MUCH better with a huge strike zone and a higher mound.
And you can't really cite Gibson to support your argument because he was a physical freak w/r/t/ endurance. He's maybe 1 in 1000000. It's just smart to keep a strict pitch limit--these guys are investments. When you have a $100 million then you can pay guys to pitch for your amusement til their arms fall off.
good debate. personally, i'm of the "pitching wins championships" camp. you have great pitchers, you ride them. sure, you want to protect them and not unreasonably or recklessly wear them down...but relief pitchers are relief pitchers for a reason. there aren't a lot of elite ones out there. if your horse has thrown 92 pitches through 7 and is cruising, trot him out for at least the 8th and maybe the 9th. too often that situation is prompting a walk to the mound and bullpen doors a-swingin.
Change sucks I hate change
Post a Comment